Thursday, August 24, 2017

AMSTERDAM NY - A FAMILY PIT BULL MAULED AN 8-YEAR-OLD BOY INSIDE THEIR FENCED-IN BACKYARD LEAVING HIM WITH SEVERE INJURIES BY BITING DOWN ON HIS NECK - HIS MOTHER WILL LIKELY BE CHARGED BECAUSE SHE HAS A HISTORY WITH PITS!

Amsterdam Police say they will likely charge the mother of an 8-yr-old boy who was attacked by the FAMILY PIT BULL.

Police say the dog ripped the skin from the little boy's throat and the child's mom 27-yr-old Jasmine Tirado lost part of her finger trying to save him, but police say Tirado will likely go in front of a judge for what happened because of her past when it comes to owning aggressive animals.

“It’s more than likely she will be charged,” Sgt. Carl Rust said.

Amsterdam Police say they expect to charge Tirado with possessing a dangerous animal.

The dog police say was involved in the attack is seen on video in the family's back yard.

Police say the 4-yr-old pit bull mix attacked Tirado's 8-year-old son Wednesday leaving him in serious condition with injuries to his throat.

“It's not common for a family pet to react this way,” Rust said.

Sgt. Rust says their investigation is still in its preliminary stages. He said investigators haven't interviewed Tirado and can't interview the injured boy, because he's sedated in the hospital.

He says officers will likely bring an initial charge against Tirado because of her history with pets.

“I think they're basing this charge on several instances where she was talked to, our Animal Control has talked to her in the past about the behavior of her dogs,” Rust said.

SIX YEARS AGO, TIRADO SPENT 19 DAYS IN SCHENECTADY COUNTY JAIL FOR A SEPARATE CASE INVOLVING AGGRESSIVE PIT BULLS. IN 2011, THREE OF TIRADO'S PIT BULLS GOT LOOSE AND ATTACKED A 58-YEAR-OLD WOMAN. THE DOGS INVOLVED IN THE 2011 CASE WERE PUT DOWN.

Amsterdam Police say they're looking at the old case for possible connections between what happened then, and what happened this week to Tirado's son. Investigators say they'll also investigate whether this dog was trained to act aggressively.

Tirado's home is plastered with signs that say the property has surveillance cameras.

Police say they plan to check that video to find out how the attack happened.

“Evidence is being gathered as we speak and a conclusion will come Monday or Tuesday of next week,” Rust said.

Police say based on their findings Tirado could face additional charges.

Based on the charge they now expect to file, a judge could order Tirado be banned from having dogs.

As of Thursday, the dog involved in Wednesday's attack was being quarantined at Tirado's house.

We spoke to neighbors who were concerned the animal would get out and attack someone else.

The Montgomery SPCA Shelter Manager Anthonio Baker says his shelter only takes in aggressive animals if it's an owner surrender, or if a judge rules the dog can't be at an owner’s home.

“It's up to the owner's discretion if they want to do the 10-day quarantine at their residence,” Baker said.

Police tell us the county health department and animal control allowed the quarantine to happen at Tirado's home because it was behind two enclosures.

Today, when we visited Tirado's home, the dog was no longer in the back yard enclosure.

We asked police where the dog is being housed tonight, but haven't heard back.

4 comments:

To me, it is very clear why the PIT BULL attacked. It is because it is a PIT BULL. When PIT BULLS are having fun, they tend to want to kill things.

Another nanny dog fail, what a shock!

Hey parents, get your kids a PIT BULL or TWO! Watch what happens! Believe the crap you hear from PIT BULL EXPERTS, like Tia Torres, Cesar Milan, and any idiot from Best Friends! Pit bulls are so misunderstood! Pit bulls just want to give your children a helicopter ride to the hospital, or put them in graves! Just think how empty and normal your lives will be without a PIT BULL. The money you'll save on hospital bills, surgeries, and therapy alone will be worth it. But don't take my word for it, because I'm a hater. I hate that pit bulls continue to hurt children FOR NO REASON!

The update is condemning! Mother will go in front of a judge because her tutu wearing therapy pit bulls in the past have attacked someone else! So what does irresponsible furmommy do? GET MORE PIT BULLS TO ATTACK HER SON! Mother of the Year Award!

It is hilarious that her own surveillance cameras will be used against her. I'm sure she had so much to protect on her property, the least of which was HER SON! This is why I get so irritated with pit bull advocates fighting against BSL! We are trying to save children from having their throats ripped out because their IDIOT parents care more about dangerous pit bulls, than they do their OWN CHILDREN!

This woman should have been banned from owning a Gerbil, let alone more pit bulls. SERIOUSLY! BSL IS THE ANSWER!

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.